The Parents’ Parenting Patterns, Education, Jobs, and Assistance to Their Children in Watching Television, and Children’s Aggressive Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this present is to test the effects of the parents’ parenting patterns, education, jobs, and assistance to children in watching television on the children’s aggressive behavior. This present research employed a quantitative approach with an ex-post factor design. The data were collected from 175 parents of which the children showed aggressive behavior. The children were studying at formal and non-formal Early Age Children Education in Magelang city. The data were obtained using: 1) questionnaires: the parents’ parenting patterns, education, jobs, assistance to their children in watching television; 2) interviews: teachers to understand children with aggressive behavior, and 3) Observation: children with aggressive behavior. The data were then analyzed using statistical techniques: descriptive, regression, chi-square and t-test. The results of the analysis showed that there was a significant effect of parenting patterns, education, jobs, and assistance of the parents to the children in watching television on the children’s aggressive behavior. And there was a significant difference in the aggressive behavior between boys and girls where it is the boys who showed more aggressive behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".